APPENDIX 7 - COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM DRAFT STRATEGIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

Author Comments Response Rob Hutsel 1. Three projects missing: 1. These projects have been added in River Park Lakes Dredging and Berm Program 3 (pages 37-38). Foundation Verbal comments Restoration, Old Mission Dam 2. Language has been added throughout Dredging, Presidio Park Hill the document to reference the Stabilization importance of cultural and historic 2. On page 3, would like to see language resources. including history and culture 3. Reference removed. 3. On page 4, found language 4. Reference added (page 6). “committed to working 5. Commented noted. The Conservancy independently” troubling and would has not established this as a policy. It like to see it stricken from plan will be scheduled as a topic of a future 4. On page 5, would like to see “success” Board meeting. as an additional criterion added under 6. More references to partners were project criteria added throughout the document and a 5. On page 17, commented that trail list of key partners added in Appendix should go from Pacific Ocean to Trans 2. County Trail, not to Headwaters. Feels 7. Changes were made to the Mission those lands are already publicly Statement to reflect the discussion at available and very “pristine”. the meeting of February 10, 2006 6. Suggested mentioning the San Diego (page 4). River Park Foundation and Coalition in the Executive Summary. 7. Recommended interim Mission Statement refer back to Article 2 of enabling legislation Mark Weston 1. Helix Water represents and owns a lot 1a. See revisions to Project 1.2 (page 11). Helix Water District of land east of Highway 67. Interest in 1b. Addition made (page 18). Verbal comments the Conservancy is as a partner and 1c. Addition made (page 19). wants document to be clear on the 1d. Addition made (page 24). following points: 1e. Change made (page 32). a. Project 1.2 El Monte Valley

1 APPENDIX 7 - COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM DRAFT STRATEGIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

Author Comments Response Property 500 acres owned by Helix Water – does not want the Plan to suggest that Helix Water Board has taken any action b. Project 1.3 Cedar Creek Falls to City of San Diego – trail will have to cross Helix property and they want to be acknowledged as partner c. Project 1.5 Historic Flume Trail – as above would like to be acknowledged as a partner. d. Page 25 El Monte Park Amenities – Helix is a key partner and should be identified in the text. e. Page 32 Project 1.1 refers to El Monte Dam, but should be referenced as El Capitan Dam Deborah Jones 1. Urged adoption of the resolution to 1. Comment acknowledged. Lakeside’s River Park accept the Plan and move forward 2. Comment acknowledged. Conservancy 2. Presented SDRC Plan to Lakeside’s Verbal and written comments RPC Governing Board on Feb. 27th, 2006 which took an action to formally support the SDRC Plan

Karen Scarborough 1. Commended staff and consultant 1. Comment acknowledged. Board Member 2. Expressed uncertainty about 60 day 2. Board will conduct a special meeting Resources Agency review period – wants to see it done in March 2006 to consider adoption of Verbal comments sooner final Plan.

2 APPENDIX 7 - COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM DRAFT STRATEGIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

Author Comments Response Jim Bartell 1. Commended staff and consultant 1. Comment acknowledged. Board Member 2. Expressed concern about review 2. Board will conduct a special meeting Verbal comments period being too long and stressed the in March 2006 to consider adoption of importance of getting a final Plan final Plan. adopted and to the State in March to 3. Reference was made to the tribes send a strong message to the Resource represented in the watershed in the Agency Assumptions section (page 5). 3. Page 8 referenced 3 jurisdictions with land use authority, but there are also 5 tribal nations that should be included since they have sovereignty within their boundaries Donna Frye 1. Expressed a desire to move quickly, 1. Comment acknowledged. Board Chair but wanted to be sure the public would 2. Mission statement revised to reflect San Diego City Council have enough time to comment comments from the Board and public Verbal comments 2. Along with board members present, at the meeting of February 10, 2006 moved to amend mission statement to (page 4). read “The mission of the San Diego River Conservancy is to further the goals of its enabling legislation (land conservation, recreation and education, habitat preservation and restoration, water quality and natural flood conveyance, and historical cultural) by conserving and restoring its land and water for the enjoyment of present and future generations John Minan 1. Moved to amend the mission 1. Mission statement revised to reflect Board Vice Chair statement comments from the Board and public SD Regional Water Quality 2. Generally felt there should be at the meeting of February 10, 2006 Control Board statement of why projects were (page 4). Verbal comments included (why they are significant or 2. Not all projects in all reaches were

3 APPENDIX 7 - COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM DRAFT STRATEGIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

Author Comments Response important) included. Staff worked closely with 3. Removal of invasive species is Partners to select the highest priority important but projects should also be projects most likely to be designed to prevent reemergence (i.e. accomplished within the five year a management component is needed) planning period. Priority was based on 4. Reference to Assembly Bill should be the project criteria described in the changed to cite Public Resource Code introductory section. 3. Comment noted and reference included in Program 3 (page 30). 4. The Public Resource Code reference was included but the Assembly Bill reference was retained as many members of the public still cite the Assembly Bill reference when describing the San Diego River Conservancy Act. It is also desirable to recognize Senator Kehoe’s vital role in creating the Conservancy. Susan Hector 1. Expressed concern at the lack of 1. Additions made throughout the Board member mention of cultural and historic document to reflect the importance of Verbal comments resource significance. Specific written cultural and historic resources recommendations were subsequently pursuant to Dr. Hector’s submitted. recommendations. In addition, a new section of cultural preservation projects was added in Program 3.

Jim Peugh 1. Wanted to see length of review period 1. Comment noted. Board member shortened 2. Additional references to partners were Verbal comments 2. Would like to see partners and added throughout the document. A list relationships amongst partners of key partners was added in Appendix mentioned in the Plan 2. 3. Would like to see more emphasis on 3. The recommendations from the

4 APPENDIX 7 - COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM DRAFT STRATEGIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

Author Comments Response water quality measures Hydrology Assessment of the San 4. Would like to see “project Diego River Watershed will be used to maintainability” and “sustainability” define future projects to improve added to list of project criteria water quality and hydrology in the San 5. Page 27 – would like to see language Diego River. (page 41). removed about density and height of 4. Additions made (page 6). vegetation being one of the most 5. The language and photo have been important safety issues revised (page 26). Jim Madaffer 1. Would like to see two projects 1. These projects have been added in San Diego City Council included in the Plan: Program 3 (page 37). Written comments a. Kumeyaay Lakes Dredging and Berm Restoration b. Old Mission Dam Dredging Project Dorothy Leonard 1. Would like to see two projects 1. These projects have been added in Mission Trails Regional Park included in the Plan: Program 3 (page 37). Citizen’s Advisory Committee a. Kumeyaay Lakes Dredging and Written comments Berm Restoration b. Old Mission Dam Dredging Project Joshua Garcia, Paul Kilberg 1. General comment; trail info is vague, 1. The purpose of the Strategic and and Rick Thompson, City of seems like it loses specifics once west Infrastructure Plan is to provide broad San Diego, E-mail of Santee. goals consistent with the communication 2. Are the four goals of the Conservancy, Conservancy’s Statutory Authority listed on page 3, in order of which would later be refined in greater importance? detail. The information presented is 3. Program 1 (page 9); what would generally based on preliminary happen to any land the Conservancy analyses (including analyses in owned and managed after 2011? existing River Planning documents); 4. Project 1.8 (page 21); the southern additional details will be presented as stretch of the golf course is on land projects are refined. leased from the City of San Diego. In 2. No.

5 APPENDIX 7 - COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM DRAFT STRATEGIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

Author Comments Response addition, this area is in critical habitat 3. If the Conservancy were to sunset, any for the Least Bells Vireo and there are owned land would be transitioned to a various existing and potential responsible entity prior to the sunset. mitigation sites along the river from 4. Comment noted. The River contains which recreation could be precluded important habitat for many species. as part of permit conditions for The Conservancy will balance the wetland mitigation from the various goals established in its statute to wildlife agencies. provide recreation, education and 5. Project 1.9 (page 21); no information access while protecting the resource. is provided on locations within the 5. See 1.above. The revised maps to be City of San Diego reaches for the included with the March 24, 2006 construction of 3.5 miles of trails. version of the Plan will show currently Actual distance from eastern existing trail miles within the City of boundary of City of San Diego to San Diego and the entire San Diego ocean is approximately 15, what is the River Watershed. A proposed trail is status of the remaining 11.5 miles of also provided in the City of San trail? How much trail exists on the Diego’s Draft San Diego River Park San Diego River within the City of San Masterplan. No further information is Diego? With all the private currently available. ownerships, would any trail be 6. This project would be developed with proposed on private land? Please the public safety agencies along the provide more information, even if it is River. Maintenance will be addressed conceptual. at that time. 6. Project 3 (page 28); bike lockers are 7. No, see 1, above. good ideas to facilitate patrols but lockers near the river could be subject to various forms of vandalism. Additionally, who would be responsible for maintenance? 7. Program 3 (page 31); are these 900 acres of restoration currently identified

6 APPENDIX 7 - COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM DRAFT STRATEGIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

Author Comments Response Megan Johnson, Southern 1. Acknowledged that SDRC and SCWRP 1. Concur. Many of the projects California Wetlands Recovery share mutual goals and should identified in the Conservancy’s Project, written comments collaborate in order to implement Strategic and Infrastructure Plan their strategic plans. share the objectives and priorities of 2. Suggested that the SCWRP Regional the WRP Regional Strategy. The Strategy is referenced as a planning Conservancy did submit early concept document in the Plan. proposals for the WRP Work plan 3. Would like to see more detail given to Update during the last round. the 5 habitat restoration projects 2. The reference was added (page 49). identified in Program 3 of the Plan – 3. The purpose of the Strategic and specifically to include goals of each Infrastructure Plan is to provide broad project and type of restoration goals consistent with the proposed, as well as addressing Conservancy’s Statutory Authority project phasing. which would later be refined in greater detail. The information presented is generally based on preliminary analyses (including analyses included in River Planning documents); additional details will be presented as projects are refined.

Mission Valley Community 1. Council took formal action on March 1. Comments acknowledged. Council, Written comments 15, 2006 to fully support SDRC’s Plan and urge the Conservancy’s Governing Board to approve it.

Gary Strawn, Written 1. Would like to see mention of fish and 1. A reference to fishing was included in comments fishing in the Plan – specifically with the section on education (page 14). regard to education and recreation. 2. Staff is currently seeking appropriate 2. Suggested including photos of people pictures for possible future use. fishing in future presentations

7 APPENDIX 7 - COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM DRAFT STRATEGIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN

Author Comments Response Trish Boaz, Kathleen Flannery, 1. Page 39: Please delete the following 1. It is included as an example of Joe DeStefano, Jon VanRhyn, language: something that did happen and the Brian Albright, Vince Nicoletti, “For example, the Conservancy is Conservancy Board has discussed on County of San Diego, e-mail currently working with the SDRPF the record in much detail. communication and a family trust to facilitate what 2. Noted. Changes have been made should be a simple donation to the throughout the document to reference SDRPF. the protection of cultural and historic Unfortunately, the trust found that the resources. donation would require compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, which would require substantial fee payments to San Diego County.” It is inappropriate to include this language as it may be inaccurate and not knowing the details of this specific project, it is best to assume it is inaccurate given that the County of San Diego does have an Environmental Subdivision Ordinance (Regulatory Ordinance Section 81.1400) which in addition, waives fees for non-profit organizations. 2. The County does not believe adequate attention has been given to the cultural and historical resources of the San Diego River Watershed. Please consider beefing up the discussion of cultural and historical resources in this document.

8